Twelve states sue Trump over tariffs, claiming they’re ‘illegal’ and harmful to US economy

Fox News - Apr 24th, 2025

President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs are being legally challenged by New York and 11 other states. The lawsuit filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade argues that Trump overstepped his authority by imposing these tariffs without congressional approval, using emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The states claim that the tariffs, imposed since February 2025 on countries such as Canada, Mexico, and China, are causing economic disruption, including increased consumer costs and potential inflation. They argue that the tariffs are unconstitutional, as they usurp Congress's role in taxation and trade policy.

The lawsuit highlights the broader implications of executive overreach, questioning the use of IEEPA to justify broad trade actions without specific threats outlined by the law. New York Attorney General Letitia James and Governor Kathy Hochul are vocal critics of Trump's policies, framing the tariffs as reckless and damaging to the economy. The coalition of states seeks to block further enforcement and have the tariffs declared invalid, fearing that allowing such actions could set a precedent for future presidents to bypass Congress in similar ways. Supporters of Trump argue that the tariffs are necessary to protect American industries and address trade imbalances, emphasizing the administration's America First agenda.

Donald Trump Kathy Hochul Tariffs Letitia James Trade Policy Economic Impact Ieepa U.S. Court Of International Trade

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.4

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The news story provides a comprehensive overview of the legal challenge against President Trump's tariffs, effectively highlighting the constitutional and economic debates at play. It scores well in accuracy and timeliness, offering a current and factual account of the lawsuit and its implications. The article presents multiple perspectives, though it could benefit from a more balanced exploration of the administration's rationale and potential benefits of the tariffs. Source quality is strong, with credible citations, but could be enhanced by including independent expert opinions. Transparency is an area for improvement, particularly in explaining the basis for economic claims and potential conflicts of interest. Overall, the article is clear, engaging, and relevant, contributing to public understanding of a significant policy issue while maintaining ethical standards in reporting.

Accuracy

The story accurately reports the key facts about the lawsuit filed by twelve states against President Trump's tariffs, citing specific legal and economic arguments. The claims regarding the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the constitutional debate over executive versus congressional authority are well-documented. However, some areas, such as the exact economic impact of the tariffs and the historical context of IEEPA use, would benefit from further verification with economic data and legal analyses. The story's factual claims align with multiple sources, reinforcing its accuracy.

Balance

The article presents perspectives from both supporters and critics of the tariffs, including statements from state officials and the Trump administration. However, it leans slightly towards highlighting the legal challenges and potential negative impacts of the tariffs, with less emphasis on the administration's rationale and potential benefits. The inclusion of quotes from Trump and a White House spokesperson provides some balance, but the piece could be improved by exploring more diverse viewpoints, such as those of economists or industry representatives.

Clarity

The article is well-structured, with a clear and logical flow of information. It effectively outlines the main issues and legal arguments, making it accessible to a general audience. The language is straightforward, and the tone remains neutral, though some complex legal and economic concepts could be further simplified or explained for clarity. Overall, the article is easy to follow and understand.

Source quality

The story cites credible sources, including official statements from government officials and the White House. It references a lawsuit filed in a recognized court, enhancing its reliability. However, the article relies heavily on statements from involved parties, which may carry inherent biases. Incorporating insights from independent experts or legal analysts could enhance the depth and credibility of the reporting.

Transparency

The article provides a clear narrative of the lawsuit and the legal arguments involved, but it lacks detailed context about the methodology behind the economic claims and the broader implications of the tariffs. While it cites official statements, there is limited disclosure about potential conflicts of interest or the basis for certain economic predictions. Greater transparency about the sources of economic data and legal interpretations would strengthen the article's transparency.